Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

890.00/4–848: Telegram

The Ambassador in Turkey (Wilson) to the Secretary of State

secret

Ankara, April 8, 1948—1 p. m.

303. Before deciding definitely whether advisable for me to approach Turkish Government on lines paragraph 5 Deptel 164, April 5¹ expressing view that US Government would welcome as beneficial development a rapprochement between countries of Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East “which would contribute to security of area” I suggest following for consideration:

1. As will appear from mytel 282 April 1² there is evidently difference of view between Turkish and Greek Governments re advisability Middle East pact. Turks feel any such “grandiose” conception would probably be unrealizable and even if realized on paper would have no actual value or effectiveness. They further feel that any such scheme might prove dangerous by seeming to give peoples of Middle East sense of security when in fact no added security would be provided; also might furnish Soviets and satellites excuse for stepping up action against Turkey and Greece on grounds pact directed against them.

2. If we make approach suggested by Department, Turkish Government will undoubtedly inquire precisely what our reasons are for believing that such a pact would in fact “contribute to security of area”.

3. In connection with paragraph 2 above, such fragmentary information as I possess re foreign policy of Arab States (insofar as these states may be said to have common foreign policy beyond their opposition to Palestine³ partition) indicates they would be reluctant to associate themselves with any large regional grouping and would prefer for time being at least to remain outside any such grouping. Certainly until Palestine question is resolved in manner acceptable to Arabs latter will not wish to participate in any East Mediterranean–Middle East regional arrangement under real or assumed Anglo-American aegis. Furthermore so long as present Arab suspicions of British Middle East policy, as exemplified by Iraq reaction to recent Anglo-Iraq treaty⁴ and Egyptian attitude toward UK⁵ continue to exist, Arabs are not likely to tie themselves up with countries so closely identified with British policy as Greece and Turkey. Moreover so long as dispute exists between Syria and Turkey over Alexandretta, Arab States will not be united in any policy of working closely with Turkey.

4. Another question Turkish Government may be counted upon to put to us should we make suggested approach, is exactly what military support US Government will be prepared to give countries composing East Mediterranean and Middle East group if formation such group results in military action against members thereof by Soviets and or satellites.

5. I should appreciate Department’s comments on foregoing. If on further consideration Department believes it still advisable for me to make this suggestion to Turkish Government, I should like receive specific information on what can be conveyed to Turks as expressing views of US Government on points raised in paragraphs 2 and 4 above.

Wilson

1. The same as No. 415, supra.
2. Not printed.
3. For documentation on the situation in Israel, see volume v .
4. For documentation on this subject, see ibid. , under Iraq.
5. For information on this subject, see editorial note, ibid. , under Egypt.